Impact of Ventilation Strategy on the Transmission of Outdoor Pollutants into Indoor Environment Using CFD
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors investigated the impact of outdoor pollutants in the air quality of two buildings in a canyon, using a 3D CFD (Ansys Fluent) validated with wind tunnel results.
The buildings are two parallelepipeds (dimensions: 10mx 10mx100m) one in front of the other. Five different types of ventilation are considered.
The results show that the pollution in upstream building is higher than in the downstream building in the case of single-sided ventilation on upstream building; and the cross-ventilation is a suggested solution.
In my opinion, this work is not valuable for publication because there is no novelty. Most of these results are already known in the scientific community, as this case study involves only two very simple buildings in a large space without obstacles. A possible way to improve this work is to check pollutants in the indoor space if a whole district is simulated in CFD, not only two simple buildings. Other possibility: check the variation of indoor pollutions if the windows are not only all open/all closed, but also in intermediate state (some open and closed at different storeys, some partially closed...).
Furthermore, can different types of pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, NOX...) influence the results?
The references to Tables and Figures are not correctly linked in the text.
Author Response
Please find enclosed the response to reviewer comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The present research work is an interesting case study centred on the analysis of the characteristics o ventilation flow into indoor air quality. Despite the fact that it is not a new idea, it is developed based on the most relevant software resources and doing a methodological analysis no usually done in these types of works getting new and interesting conclusions. In this sense, there are some comments that may help the paper to increase the interest of readers;
- The abstract use to be in a single paragraph and with a maximum number of words. It must be revised in this paper.
- It may be of interest to increase the quality of Figure 2, if it is possible.
- There are references not found in the manuscript like in lines 228 and 246.
- At the time to validate the results, it may be of interest to employ a statistical indicator like, for instance, the correlation factor between previous results and actual results ( it is just a proposal )
Finally, despite the fact that the results and the discussion is done like in most of the CFD research works, in my opinion, there is a lack of objective comparison of two 2-D CFD images like that shown in table 4 case 1 and case 2. Both images are apparently similar but, maybe, there is any kind of mathematical function or average value that let to define the differences in a more objective way. It is just a proposal but, in my opinion, a real need in this kind of analysis
Finally, the paper is well written and the paper format is adequate so, after the correction in accordance with these comments, the paper may be considered adequate for publication.
Author Response
Please find enclosed the response to reviewer comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This study evaluated the transmission of outdoor pollutants into the indoor environment using 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics modelling with a pollution dispersion model. The difference between this study and previously published paper is unclear. Please clarify the original contribution. I don't see any experimental validation. Please address how the CFD model is validated. The language should be polished for better understanding.
Author Response
Please find enclosed the response to reviewer comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
OK, accept
Reviewer 2 Report
After the corrections developed by the authors the paper is, in my opinion, of interest and adequate for publication.
